| Course | HLTH 8242 Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Peer critique reply |
| Length | About 450 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8242 Week 10
Week 10 Reply: Critique of Leila's Physical Activity Program Draft
Peer Critique: A Step-Count Contest With Gift Card Prizes Rests on Nothing in the Draft's Self-Determination Theory Section and May Work Against the Autonomy the Theory Puts First
Reply to Leila
Leila, your draft grounds a physical activity program for older adults in a public housing complex in self-determination theory, and most of its activities follow from that choice. The walking group that residents plan themselves supports autonomy, the chair exercise class with a trained peer leader builds competence, and the buddy system supports relatedness. Those three needs are the core of the theory as Deci and Ryan (2000) describe it, and your map ties each activity to one of them clearly.
The activity I want to question is the monthly step-count contest, with gift cards for the three residents who log the most steps. I could not find a construct in your theory section that it serves. It does not give residents choice, since the goal and the measure are set by the program. It does not build competence in a way the other activities do not already cover. And it may weaken relatedness by turning neighbors into competitors.
More important, the theory you cite predicts that it could backfire. Self-determination theory distinguishes intrinsic motivation, doing something because it is satisfying in itself, from extrinsic motivation driven by rewards or pressure. A meta-analysis of 128 experiments found that expected tangible rewards, including rewards given for completing or performing well at a task, significantly reduced later free-choice intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). If residents start walking to win a gift card, they may stop when the contest ends, and some may come to see walking as something done for a prize rather than for themselves. That is the opposite of the internalized motivation your theory section says the program aims to build.
I am not arguing that incentives never help. They may be useful to start a behavior when intrinsic motivation is absent, and some evidence supports small rewards for attendance. The behavior change technique taxonomy lists material reward and incentive as distinct techniques precisely because their effects can differ (Michie et al., 2013). But a contest that ranks residents and rewards only the top three is the kind of competitive, performance-contingent reward the theory treats as most likely to feel controlling.
Two possible changes: replace the contest with group milestones the residents choose and celebrate together, which supports relatedness and autonomy, or keep a small reward for everyone who joins the walking group in its first month, framed as a thank-you rather than a prize, and then phase it out. Either would sit closer to the theory you chose. Which fits the residents you have in mind?
References
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
The Walden HLTH 8242 Week 10 instructions
This reply checks a classmate's draft by checking whether each activity is supported by the theory the draft cites. The reply should credit activities that fit, identify any that do not and explain, using the theory's own predictions, why a mismatched activity may fail or backfire. Faculty value replies that acknowledge exceptions and offer alternatives consistent with the theory. Evidence should be cited. Keep it collegial and finish on a question. Replies that quote the draft's own theory section make the mismatch easiest for the classmate to see and act on.
How the HLTH 8242 Week 10 example is put together
The reply opens by crediting three activities and their mapping to autonomy, competence and relatedness, citing Deci and Ryan. The second paragraph names the step-count contest and shows that it serves none of the three needs and may weaken relatedness. The third explains the theory's distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and cites Deci, Koestner and Ryan's meta-analysis on expected tangible rewards. The fourth concedes that incentives can help in some cases and cites Michie and colleagues' taxonomy on the difference between incentive and reward. The final paragraph proposes two alternatives and asks which fits the residents.
Reading the HLTH 8242 Week 10 rubric
Peer critiques this week are graded on whether they test activities against the classmate's own theory. A reply that objects to an activity on general grounds earns less than one that shows the theory itself predicts a problem. The rubric rewards crediting what works, identifying the mismatched activity precisely and citing evidence. Faculty value a fair concession about when incentives can help. Alternatives that fit the theory make the critique useful. A closing question invites revision. Replies that keep to one activity, examined closely, tend to outscore those that touch several lightly. Faculty also notice whether the critique uses the theory's own terms accurately, such as the difference between controlling and informational rewards.
Common HLTH 8242 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Critiques of theory-based drafts often stop at "this activity doesn't fit the theory" without explaining what the theory predicts. Others criticize incentives in general, ignoring evidence that some help. A third problem is critiquing without offering an alternative. To write a stronger reply, start with what the draft does well. Pick the one activity that fits least. Explain what the cited theory predicts about it, with a source. Concede when the activity might still help. Suggest one or two changes that fit the theory. End with a question. Keep the focus on one activity, and use the theory's terms precisely. Quote or paraphrase the classmate's own theory section so the mismatch is easy to see. Offer alternatives that the classmate could adopt without rewriting the whole program. Should a model reply on a different draft be useful, one can be prepared for your thread.
Get a HLTH 8242 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Paste in or attach the intervention draft your classmate posted, plus the peer-response instructions and the rubric. The HLTH 8242 reply that comes back checks each activity against the theory the classmate cited, isolates any activity that theory does not predict, and suggests two repairs while leaving their design in their hands. Allow 24 to 48 hours, first one free.
More HLTH 8242 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8242 Week 1: Target Behavior Orientation Post
- HLTH 8242 Week 2: Target Behavior Brief
- HLTH 8242 Week 3: Risk Message Discussion Post
- HLTH 8242 Week 4: Theory Selection Memo
- HLTH 8242 Week 5: Kit Return Barrier Analysis
- HLTH 8242 Week 6: Mechanism Logic Model
- HLTH 8242 Week 7: Construct Activity Map
- HLTH 8242 Week 8: TIDieR Intervention Draft
- HLTH 8242 Week 9: Mediation Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 8242 Week 11: Program Design Defense
- HLTH 8202E Week 10: Draft Item Peer Replies
HLTH 8242 Week 10 questions, answered
What if every activity in the classmate's draft maps to a construct?
Then check whether the mapping is plausible, not just present. An activity labeled as building self-efficacy may do nothing of the kind if it only provides information. The critique can also test whether the dose is enough to move the construct. Confirming a sound design, with a narrower question attached, is still a useful reply.
Are incentives always a problem for self-determination theory?
No. The theory separates rewards experienced as controlling from those experienced as informational, and predicts different effects for each. Feedback that shows progress can support competence. The problem in the sample is a competitive prize framed around ranking, which the theory predicts may undermine motivation. Your critique should state which kind of reward is at issue.
Is the public housing draft based on a real program?
No. The residents, the building and the classmate's draft are composites made for the example, chosen because walking programs for older adults commonly draw on self-determination theory. Whatever draft lands in your section's thread, one test carries over: does a theory in the paper predict each activity it proposes?
Where can I find a free HLTH 8242 Week 10 sample paper?
The full Week 10 peer critique for HLTH 8242 appears above, questioning a step-count contest in a self-determination theory program for older adults, with two alternatives and three references.
What alternatives does the critique propose?
Group milestones that residents choose and celebrate together, or a small thank-you reward for everyone who joins the walking group in its first month, framed as appreciation and then phased out.